New York Times basically says the Constitution will destroy America

Discussion in 'Politics' started by TreeFrogTrader, Sep 9, 2020.

  1. How bout maybe the New York Times will destroy America first?

    If you want the punchline, and skip the article, it is that the Dems feel mighty good about Biden winning the popular vote but are still sweating and fretting over the electoral college vote so they are running ahead and trying to de-legitimize the election in advance in case Trump wins. Same old, same old. I thought they all swore in blood last time that they were going to amend the constitution, They even put Eric Holder in charge of the effort. Amending the requires a lot of work though. Not exactly their strong point. Also, I thought they had all these workarounds in states that passed laws to give their electoral votes to whomever got the popular vote. Whatever, I don't keep up with what their latest victim routine is.

    The Electoral College Will Destroy America

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/opinion/electoral-college-trump-biden.html
     
  2. Not going by the popular vote makes no sense. It was there to appease slaveholders. Trump is going to win the in-person vote easily and Biden is going to win the mail-in vote easily. I have no doubt Trump is going to contest the election and claim fraud if he loses the electoral college. He's all but said he would. He's been delegitimizing mail-in voting for months now (knowing he's doing better with the in-person vote). If Biden loses the electoral college I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to challenge the results as well. However, PA, MI, and WI will all likely be more favorable to Biden than FL and they all have Democratic governors. If Biden wins those 3 states he wins the election.
     
  3. UsualName

    UsualName

    Not if Trump destroys the Constitution first.
     
  4. UsualName

    UsualName

    Actually the electoral college was designed to keep people like the maniac mango out of office.
     
  5. Despite all the talk about Trump not going to yield, the only one we have on record so far is Hillary Clinton saying that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER should Biden concede, which would include even if he is elected.

    She was a dem last time I heard from her.

    Get real, Biden has an army of lawyers the size of division working to invalidate the election before it even occurs. Plus the New York Times, CNN, and MSDNC wings of the dem party.
     
  6. Bugenhagen

    Bugenhagen

    Put me back on super ignore Frog, don't want to see your drivel.
     
  7. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    So you don't think Biden will challenge the vote, do you? I just want to make sure your post ages well.
     
  8. I said I think it's likely Biden does if he loses. Part of that is influenced by what Hillary said. I'm nearly willing to bet the house Trump would challenge it if he loses.
     
    Tsing Tao likes this.
  9. Snarkhund

    Snarkhund

    Wow. This is quite the load of horse shit.

    The electoral college system was established so that the entire population is represented in elections and not dominated by a few large cities. No amount of hand waving or lamentation is going to change that.

    Democrats have said that they will not accept the outcome of a national election unless they win. That is infantile. We don't have a populate vote so it is not possible to win by those means. California, for instance, will cheat intensely but they only have so many electoral votes so the electoral college system tends to damp down the results of voter fraud and cheating rampant in California.

    The 2024 election will require voters to present valid ID in order to vote as well. Count on it.
     
  10. Not horseshit at all. You need to learn some history. Slavery played a huge role in the electoral college:
    https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

    The entire population is represented in a popular vote. Currently, the electoral college disproportionately gives extra votes to smaller states which tend to be rural and as a whole lean Republican. There were 14,181,595 votes in CA in 2016 and 255,849 in WY. So CA had 55.4x as many votes but only 18.3x as many electoral college votes. This means that a vote in CA is worth about 33% of a vote in WY. The additional 2 electorate votes every state gets gave Trump an additional 18 electoral college votes over Hillary in 2016 since he won 30 states and she won 20+DC. The remaining difference in the electoral college advantage comes who's winning the tight races. Winning by big margins like she did in CA (4 million votes) meant nothing. She could have won by 1 vote, would have been the same result. If she could have spread 75k of that 4 mm around to MI, WI, and PA she would have won obviously.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2020
    #10     Sep 9, 2020